D&D General Why Exploration Is the Worst Pillar

[iserith]

No, you attempted to address dancing lights with a bunch of non-sequitors that didn't actually address anything.


You trip traps from range. Does no one actually do this? This has been SOP in any group I've played with since 2e. Now that it's a cantrip, traps are largely a thing of the past.


Again, DM dependent. Which is the point that was being made.

What? Why is the wizard unavailable? When do you think you cast this? This is for protecting your campsite. You spend a short rest, which the wizard doesn't benefit from typically, setting up a bunch of alarms. In a dungeon, it gets even easier, you just need a couple in intersections leading to where ever you are holing up.


Oh noes, I'm short ONE of my SIX spells at 1st level. 8 by 2nd level. Oh noes, whatever shall I do without that one slot? Never minding the other two casters in the group.

Again, I thought we weren't limiting ourselves to mega dungeons for exploration. If by exploration, you only mean dungeon crawling, then, well, this becomes a very different conversation.


Oh noes, I'm going to waste that free water that I just created for free. Whatever shall I do? It's not like I cast it before we long rest and then have all my spell slots back in the morning.


Seriously? The ability to detect magic, even through solid objects isn't a major thing? You're not even trying now. Again, how frenetic are your adventures when 10 minutes actually makes a difference? In the vast majority of adventures, it makes zero difference.


Again, non-sequitors that did nothing to actually address things.


Why? You cast them the night before (it's unlikely you've blown every spell before you take a long rest) and you have all your slots back in the morning. It's almost like all your objections rely on the players being mind bogglingly stupid.

Oh noes, I'm using one of my many slots on purify food and drink. It's not like I don't have 6 slots at 3rd level with a 16 wisdom (as per the PHB). And I get more of them every level and every ASI. Oh noes, what a huge opportunity cost.


So, animals have no knowledge of dangerous predators in the area? Again, the fact that you point to the fact that this is DM dependent pretty much shows exactly what we're talking about.


What I've done here is show that there is a shopping list of options that players can bring to bear in nearly any situation which will pretty much bypass most exploration challenges. The other two pillars have nothing that comes even close to this. And I haven't even started with class abilities, just spells.

But, yes, your response proves the point rather nicely. Exploration is DM dependent to a degree that social and combat aren't.

Your responses suggest a lot about the kinds of games you play or run - or at least the one you have in your head to stake out your position. There seems to be very broad handwaving with certain spell effects on the environment, traps that seems to mostly trigger the same way, and there doesn't seem to be meaningful resource expenditure during the adventuring day since the casters are just lousy with spell slots. That's very interesting. This is almost never the case with a game with a strong exploration element in my experience. Some of these tools you listed would get you to the next step in an exploration challenge or make certain things easier, as I've pointed out, with a cost or a trade-off. If you're able to ignore those costs or trade-offs in your game, but not in mine, perhaps there's something going on in your game worth examining more closely. That is, if you actually want the exploration pillar to have some teeth.

You also say several times, as do others, that the DM decides or that something is "DM-dependent." Well, yes, the DM decides everything in the game where it comes to what is in the environment and what the result of adventurer's action is. That's across all pillars - combat, exploration, and social interaction. When and whether rules come into play to resolve an action a player has stated is purely up to the DM and nobody else. Hopefully the DM is reasonably consistent about adjudication so that players can make reasonably informed decisions. But make no mistake, the DM always decides. That's just D&D 5e. If that's not to your liking, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Faolyn]

No, they really, really aren't. You've shown that quite clearly. This thread has demonstrated this quite clearly.

Really, what skill check do I use for finding a secret door? What codified rule, page and paragraph please, do I use here? Do I use Perception or Passive Perception or Investigation? Or something else? Shouldn't Survival be of use here? After all, it's for finding tracks, so, it's obviously a skill for seeing/noticing details. What, clearly codified skill should I be using?

Investigation. "When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check." (PH, page 177)

Perception is for finding things that aren't deliberately hidden. They might be "obscured and easy to miss," as per the text, but they're not hidden.

Basically, if you can stand where you are and potentially see/hear/taste/smell/feel the thing, use Perception. If you have to wander around looking under or behind or inside of things, use Investigation.

 

[iserith]

No, they really, really aren't. You've shown that quite clearly. This thread has demonstrated this quite clearly.

Really, what skill check do I use for finding a secret door? What codified rule, page and paragraph please, do I use here? Do I use Perception or Passive Perception or Investigation? Or something else? Shouldn't Survival be of use here? After all, it's for finding tracks, so, it's obviously a skill for seeing/noticing details. What, clearly codified skill should I be using?

If a character is searching for a secret door, the DM can resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome a couple of ways - via a passive Wisdom (Perception) check or a Wisdom (Perception) check, depending on how the player has described their approach. If the mechanism for opening it isn't obvious, the character may have to try to deduce how to open it, which may call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check. That's DMG page 103-104.

 

[Faolyn]

Why is my druid alone?

But, okay, I'll play. Give me a level range please. Is this a 1st level druid or a 10th? Because that's going to make a serious difference.

Let's see - Create Bonfire/Produce Flame solves light problems. Thunderclap destroys both doors as neither are immune to thunder damage (although that's going to be REALLY noisy), so, I'm not trapped. What else do I need to do here?

Sure, if we want to theory craft ludicrous situations, we can do that. About par for the course in this thread.

Now what does your druid do if you're not actually trying to destroy anything in this room, alert guards, or burn something important? It's pretty easy to blow stuff up or hack it to bits; slightly less easy if you're trying for subtlety.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Investigation. "When you look around for clues and make deductions based on those clues, you make an Intelligence (Investigation) check. You might deduce the location of a hidden object, discern from the appearance of a wound what kind of weapon dealt it, or determine the weakest point in a tunnel that could cause it to collapse. Poring through ancient scrolls in search of a hidden fragment of knowledge might also call for an Intelligence (Investigation) check." (PH, page 177)

Perception is for finding things that aren't deliberately hidden. They might be "obscured and easy to miss," as per the text, but they're not hidden.

Basically, if you can stand where you are and potentially see/hear/taste/smell/feel the thing, use Perception. If you have to wander around looking under or behind or inside of things, use Investigation.

That's a great ruling! WotC seems to disagree quite often in their published adventures, but they agree sometimes as well.

 

[mrpopstar]

I'm not talking about your group though. My group does the same thing. But, I've played in groups and seen modules where if you don't state that you're looking around, you blunder into traps. It's hardly universal. And, as far as traps go, again, it's entirely DM dependent. Which is the argument that people were making about why exploration is problematic in ways that say, combat isn't. No one has any questions about how to stick a pointy metal thing into that giant. It's 100% concrete and does not vary from table to table. Can I look at that chest and determine if it's trapped? Depends entirely on the DM.

Given the Dungeon Master is in full control of what your character perceives in combat, just like anywhere else, it's an equally fickle realm of adjudication if there isn't common agreement.

On traps...
I think there was a statement by one of the developers at one point about a desire to make passive checks to notice traps more consistent after the first couple published modules introduced a few inconsistencies.

Either way, they revisited traps in Xanathar's Guide to Everything and further emphasized the role of passive checks.

 

[mrpopstar]

That's a great ruling! WotC seems to disagree quite often in their published adventures, but they agree sometimes as well.

Did they go back and fix those inconsistencies for subsequent printings? Why do I remember something to that effect?


Eh, maybe I made it up.

Wishful thinking!

 

[iserith]

Given the Dungeon Master is in full control of what your character perceives in combat, just like anywhere else, it's an equally fickle realm of adjudication if there isn't common agreement.

On traps...
I think there was a statement by one of the developers at one point about a desire to make passive checks to notice traps more consistent after the first couple published modules introduced a few inconsistencies.

Either way, they revisited traps in Xanathar's Guide to Everything and further emphasized the role of passive checks.

I think the way to look at published adventures is that they aren't rules. Published adventures are essentially a DM trying to communicate their vision to the reader including how they would use the rules. Any inconsistencies with the actual rules are what they are, a DM deciding whether, when, and how to bring the rules into play. And that's how the game works anyway - DM decides - even if they sometimes don't follow the rules in the PHB or DMG.

 

[Aldarc]

That's a great ruling! WotC seems to disagree quite often in their published adventures, but they agree sometimes as well.

I do think it's worth pointing out that WotC did deliberately design some of its rules to be vague as a means to empower their whole "rulings not rules" mantra. I've seen a number of people on sub-Reddits complaining how "rulings not rules" disproportionately affects the exploration and social pillars of the game. And we get lot's of information up-front in the DMG that the GM is not bound by the rules:

And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.

The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game.

The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. For example, a player might want his or her character to
hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster's face. How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you.

Since combat isn't the focus, game rules take a back seat to character development. Ability check modifiers and skill proficiencies take precedence over combat
bonuses. Feel free to change or ignore rules to fit the players' roleplaying needs, using the advice presented in part 3 of this book.

I will note that while this last quote says "to fit the players' roleplaying needs," a lot of approaches here often effectively advocate for "the GM's game, the GM's rules" in a way that ignores the part that follows.

Remember that dice don't run your game- you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is
automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

How does one automatically succeed or fail? When are dice rolled? Does one have advantage or disadvantage? How does one get advantage? The GM decides using a ruling.

A lot about 5e D&D's design is all about a return to GM empowerment. The GM is given a LOT of leeway to change rules, make rulings, etc. So a typical game of 5e D&D is generally never played RAW. I think that this is why I often prefer talking about praxis in the case of D&D 5e while talking about RAW game design with a number of other games, including 4e D&D.

 

[Zardnaar]

More info.

Using Kingmaker as foundation.

XP for hexes.
Poisonous food causes exhaustion.
Dead and wild magic zones.
Toys from war left around.
Blight storms as a hazard. Causes exhaustion.
Dead god juice
The wastes have kewl stuff eg power armor and guns to find. And ammo.